Some Considerations on Communion on the Hand

Historical Considerations on Communion on the Hand

Here are some patristic and historical considerations on our theme,as well as
an additional aspect.

Was it Universal? The history of communion in the hand is
usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the
apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the
age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the
Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the
hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up to
date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at
least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was
the norm. A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St.
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the Faithful to “make a throne
of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]”. This Father of
the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in
one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one
should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.
According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the
consecrated bread came about in this way: During the the Middle Ages, there were
certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which
took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God
and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an over emphasis on
the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying
of His sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred
liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.
In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy
Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became
more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host
during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation” [so
the mainstream treatment of this period continues] and the equally unhealthy
Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, find their origins
during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we
would do well to rid ourselves of). It was in this atmosphere and under these
circumstances that the practice of communion in the hand began to be restricted.
The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth
of the communicant developed and sad to say was imposed. The conclusion
is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in
the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not
allowing the Faithful to “take and eat”, and return to the pristine usage of the
Fathers and of the Apostles: communion in the hand. It is a compelling story. It
is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who
is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and
the laity receiving It from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.[1] A more rigorous
study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the
Fathers, does not support the assertion that communion in the hand was a
universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the
practice of communion on the tongue. Rather, the facts seem to point to a
different conclusion. Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth
century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the
sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of communion in the mouth as the
current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” [2]. The
Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a
well established fact. A century and a half later, but still three centuries
before the practice ( according to the popular account reviewed above) was
supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness.
In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a
miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s
mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy
Communion. These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can
one reasonablely say that communion in the hand continued as the official
practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving communion on the
tongue is a medieval invention? We are not claiming that under no circumstances
whatever did the Faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions
did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the
priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However,
during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when
the Faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to
themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived
of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so
would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same
applied to monks who had gone out into the desert, where they would not have the
services of a priest, and, would not want to give up the practice of daily
communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do
so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available,
one did not receive in one’s hand. So St. Basil(330-379)says clearly that to
receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution
or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was
available to give It. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a
grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of
persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, our emphasis). The
text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of
persecution, would be a grave fault [3]. The Saint based his opinion on the
custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their
dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves
Communion. In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie
Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the
practice of communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning
of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either
receiving by hand or not receiving at all. After persecution had ceased,
evidently the practice of communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was
considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed
to be contrary to the custom of the Apostles. Thus the Council of Rouen, which
met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or
laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was
known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited
the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what
happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It
decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in
the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

What about St. Cyril? Of course, the promoters of “communion in the hand”
generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do,
however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who
lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil. Dr. Henri LeClerq
summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the
faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have
the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left
hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the
Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also on to proposes
the following:

“Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body... “When your lips are
still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes,
your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even
superstitious? Irreverent?)recommendation has caused scholars to question the
authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an
interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it. It is
not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who
succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we
know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine.
So, in favour of communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and
questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses,
including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the
communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth= century.
Clericalism? Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the
Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests were not
allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other
than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even
a priest, could do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical
practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not
celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his
own hand: he received on the tongue form another priest. The same would be true
of a Bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself. When Pope St. Pius X, for
example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought
to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he
received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.
This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary
touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread
of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own
“eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of
dropping and loss of Fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially
consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do
so needlessly.

Endnotes[1] sess. 13, c. 8: “Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it
was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the
communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate
themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought
with justice and reason to be retained.” In sacramentale autem sumptione semper
in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a Sacerdotibus communionem acciperent;
Sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos communicarent: qui mos, tamquam ex
traditione Apostolica descendens, jure, ac merito retinere debet.[2] “Hoc
enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur.” Serm. 91.3[3] Just as if I were to
say, “It is not a grave fault to miss mass on a Sunday, if one has to take care
of sick person.” This implies (what we already know) that when there is no such
excusing cause, it would be a grave fault.

VALID OBJECTIONS TO COMMUNION IN THE HAND

There time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can
to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long
past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in
the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In
Canada and the United States, it is true, that one may receive “on the hand”,
with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue. Here are twelve
reasons why.

1. The legal status of the two methods It is the law of the universal Church,
in the Latin Rite, (to which most of us belong) that we receive communion in the
traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult”, or concession
that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the
world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the
bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission. Another way of
illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the
indult for communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual
bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the
traditional way of receiving communion: on the tongue. Thus, the point of view
of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal. It must be further noted
that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive
communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more
reverent”. One will search in vain for any encouragement of communion in the
hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time
that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be
done reverently, but be careful! In some countries the practice of receiving
Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by
individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic
See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic
species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the
individuals guilty of such behaviour but also to the pastors of the church who
have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the
Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who
prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not
taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the
hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this
present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is
in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do
so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice
has been authorized. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, 11) In
Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the
letter to nuncios which accompanied the actual indult in each and every case,
the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many
precautiions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would
seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not
allowed.

2. The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current practice
of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant
Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was the reintroduction
of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea
below. But even if it were the case, that this was formerly a practice in the
Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox.
Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by
Christ and His Church, and of the reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a
liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the
hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in
Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very
least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the
ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and
development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more
explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to
us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant
defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical= authority. The
desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the
Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s Faithful (who by
definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this
practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church,
and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical
revolutionary fashion. When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in
North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of
deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a
cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were
this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the
practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and
disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some
desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different
spirit was at work.

3. The Fragments... If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in
the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind:
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and
endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and
entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in
such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[Note 205: Cf.
Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis). The Roman Catechism put it
this way: Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species,
but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives
Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being
given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.... the body of our
Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.=20
Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these
fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of
persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see
well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc., etc. For those who believe with lively
faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to communion in the hand:
“What about the Fragments?”

4. Who promotes communion in the hand? (This argument might be accused of the
logical fallacy of “guilt by association”. But that argument is not necessarily
false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers)
who promote communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part,
have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and
perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal,
bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which
modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention
is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters
(knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to
the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of “the
idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the= ultimate”. Well, these are
the promoters of communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the
traditional manner of reception. Why?

5. “Communion in the hand” is a misnomer. To place the Sacred Host in the
hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy
Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening
here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then
giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own
(extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the
ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary
ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved. It has been
suggested that this practice ought to be renamed as “common manual
self-communication”. 6. Communion in the hand is too casual. What kind of foods
do we eat with our hands? Often, in our “culture”, it is food to which one pays
no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our
eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged
in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only withe them, this seems
to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

7. Its fruits... We must be rigorously honest with oursleves. Has this
practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has
it resulted in greater prayerfulness, graeter love, and a more abundant
fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the
Lord’s Body nto our hanads? At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the
introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger
liturgicla reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer,
at least, that communion in the hand must share part of the blame fo rthe
decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

8. Was it universal? To show that communion in the hand was once a universal
practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as
to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not
usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: this text
is of dubious origin. In fact, it is more likely from Bishop so and so, a
Nestorian bishop. Further, we have texts of Leo the Great... and Gregory the
great... and St. Basil, as well as...

9. The Last Supper But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at
the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were,
though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even,
bishops. But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern
hospitality, which was practised in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one
feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth
of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a
morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did He place this wet
morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend
to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend”, the gesture of
hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving
Himself by His own hand”.

10. Scriptural Considerations... In Holy Communion, we receive the
Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet
lesser manner than do we, it was as follows: And [the Lord] said to me: ... “But
you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious
house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a
hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it ... And He
said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go
speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll
to eat [“And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” =97 Vulgate].
And he= said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your
stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ez.
2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV). It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand,
but that he opened His mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to
receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the
Bread come down from Heaven. In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic,
Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord
says to us,=20 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt.
Open wide your mouth and I will fill it ... But Israel I would feed with finest
wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “Iwill fill it,” not “fill it
yourselves”. Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in
a certain direction.

11. Authentic Inter-ritual and Ecumenical Considerations If we glance around
the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask,
“how do they receive Holy Communion?”. If the present writer is not wrong, they
do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare
circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different
manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after.
We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favour of communion in the
hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow
Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to
“childish”. And If we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share
with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask
ourselves: “How do they receive Communion?” Further, is true Christian unity
promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a
significant part is communion in the= hand.

12. The Pope... and Mother Teresa of Calcutta It is well known that the Holy
Father is not a promoter of communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the
practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church.
It was also illicit until recently in the Vatican Basilica. All of Mother
Teresa’s sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the
Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the
tongue. And it has never been denied, and implicity reaffirmed that Mother
Teresa, when asked what worried her most of all in this world, answered:
“communion in the hand.”

Conclusion St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only
what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the
Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to
distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch It. “To touch the
sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the
ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the
Eucharist” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).